My argument against that premise, is that the two are really much much more different than Coke and Pepsi, which are virtually the same. It may be a choice between Pepsi and Mt. Dew, or a choice between diet Dr. Pepper, and diet Coke, when you hate diet pop, but it really isn't Coke V Pepsi, IMO.

People making that argument claim that BOTH sides spend ridiculous money and that BOTH sides expand government, but look at the claims...

The only real reason that Liberals can claim that Reps. spend out of control is due to all of the recent war spending. The problem with that claim, IMO, is that war spending ends and goes away, and there are huge spans of relative peace that are fairly cost effective, even when maintaining a huge military. On the other hand, Liberals spend similar amounts of money compared to "war time" Conservative budgets, on new social entitlement programs, and NOT ONE program has ever been done away with or reduced in a major way since its inception, NOT ONE. They ALL continue to grow. Liberals continue to be the "Robinhoods" of the political arena literally "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor," but the problem is, it doesn't create any LESS poor people. In fact, the number of poor people seems to grow under their philosophy, and why wouldn't it, they literally incentivize laziness and a desire not to work.

There is another difference too... Everyone knows the mantra that is "Liberals expand the government." Liberals now claim that Republicans expand the government just as much. What's wrong with that claim? Well, Democrats have become the party of shinking the military (a.k.a. "the government"), but expanding bureaucracies, social entitlement programs, government agencies, and regulation. What's the difference then? IMO the difference is two fold - 1) for the most part the military doesn't "infringe" or effect our daily lives, the Liberal agencies do. The military doesn't "take away" from our freedoms, add regulations to our lives, or otherwise impede or affect us in any way. The same cant' be said for new Liberal agencies and regulations. To put it another way, we don't notice much of a difference with huge cuts or huge expansions of the military, but we sure do notice them when its the traditional government that is expanding.

To put another way, IMO you can't call it Coke V Pepsi when Coke gives you a massive government over-haul and quasitake-over of Health Care, and Pepsi gives you a war on Iraq and fleets of military destroyers. Those two things are very, very different. You may not like either option, which is fine, but the two are NOT the same or even similar.

September 12th, 2012, 5:23 pm

regularjoe12

Off. Coordinator – Joe Lombardi

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 amPosts: 4180Location: Davison Mi

Re: Coke V Pepsi

coke will give you an ulcerPespi will give you diabetes

Both taste differently. While neither will kill you, both will make you hate life if you dont control em.

Same diff to me....

Coke Vs. Pepsi...I think I'll try a glass a water.

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

September 12th, 2012, 5:29 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9898Location: Dallas

Re: Coke V Pepsi

I know some folks who swear by Coke and others who swear by Pepsi. You can try to differentiate the fine details - but in all honestly the outcome is the same.

Did Romney not implement health care reform when he was gov of Mass?

You try to say the Reps spend on Wars, and the Dems spend on entitlement programs. You know what, I don't care if you buy a case of Pepsi or Coke - you are still spending the $. The Reps have always spent big on the military, wars or not.

Both are expanding the gov't, its just a matter of where the dollars are going.

Let me ask you a question, we have two families - each bring in $40K a year and spend $80K. I don't care what they are spending the money on, the base problem is the same. You can look for differences, but one is Coke and one is Pepsi and both are in serious debt.

I know some folks who swear by Coke and others who swear by Pepsi. You can try to differentiate the fine details - but in all honestly the outcome is the same.

Did Romney not implement health care reform when he was gov of Mass?

You try to say the Reps spend on Wars, and the Dems spend on entitlement programs. You know what, I don't care if you buy a case of Pepsi or Coke - you are still spending the $. The Reps have always spent big on the military, wars or not.

Both are expanding the gov't, its just a matter of where the dollars are going.

Let me ask you a question, we have two families - each bring in $40K a year and spend $80K. I don't care what they are spending the money on, the base problem is the same. You can look for differences, but one is Coke and one is Pepsi and both are in serious debt.

Pablo, year by year the programs that Reps initiate DO NOT cost the same as the programs that Dems initate.

You have two familys, both make $40k per year, one family has a $120k per year medical emergency that lasts 2-3 years every 20 years, the other wants to spend $120k more than they take in EVERY YEAR and BORROW to make it happen (not meaning that the govt borrows money, both sides borrow money. What I mean is, the Dem. plan will get MORE expensive year after year). There is a HUGE difference in those numbers!

Mitt Romney initiated health care reform in Mass really? It had nothing to do with what the people of Mass wanted? Nothing to do with the Democrat controlled State Congress? All Mitt did was temper it down and sign it into law. They got the legislation that they wanted. Why is that being used as an example of what he would do as president? That's just ridiculous!!! FLAT OUT RIDICULOUS. If he DIDN'T sign the Bill that the Democrat Congress and Citizens of Mass WANTED legislated the Dems would bitch about that too!

September 12th, 2012, 6:04 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9898Location: Dallas

Re: Coke V Pepsi

wjb21ndtown wrote:

You have two familys, both make $40k per year, one family has a $120k per year medical emergency that lasts 2-3 years every 20 years, the other wants to spend $120k more than they take in EVERY YEAR and BORROW to make it happen (not meaning that the govt borrows money, both sides borrow money. What I mean is, the Dem. plan will get MORE expensive year after year). There is a HUGE difference in those numbers!

You are forgetting one thing, that family with the medical emergency - always has a medical emergency.

Please stop using GWB as an example of a republican way of government. He spent ridiculously. He's taking the blame for it, no one's ever denied it. BUT he wasn't the one that deregulated the banks. That was Clinton. And before that it was Carter. Bush was responsible for the bank bailouts, not creating what happened. He didn't pay attention to it, so he's equally as guilty in my book, but the whole argument that this was due to legislation under Bush's term is crazy.

Obama gets credit for killing Don't ask Don't tell, which was enacted by Clinton. The blame game is just hilarious and the fact that everyone believes it, is even more hilarious. The repubs didn't create the KKK or hold up civil rights... the Dems did. And you can swap things that get blamed on the Dems just as frequently.

The simple fact is while you think the issue is the same regardless of side, the PATH does matter. And the path makes the journey to the issue quite different as well. You might think that it makes everything look the same, but then you're not looking at the right things. Excuses and blame is only used to distract. The media picks winners even though winners and losers aren't decided until the vote. If anyone is to blame for the current state of politics, look no further than the media. But of course if you look back at that, you'd look back in history at the progressive party back in the 20's and 30's that started a media consultant group specifically to alter how the media works and how to get the message out.

The parties aren't the same... but they both realize they have to play the same games. And if you can't differentiate that, then you're not paying enough attention.

September 12th, 2012, 8:10 pm

Blueskies

QB Coach

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3084

Re: Coke V Pepsi

Quote:

Please stop using GWB as an example of a republican way of government.

Uh...what? The guy was president for eight years. He was the head of the Republican party. For most of his time in office he had both a Republican House and Senate.

Republicans like to peddle the myth that they're the party of small government. They're not. When in power, they expand government. This has been true since Eisenhower.

I generally like what Republicans say, but I won't vote for them because they never live up to it. The whole "fool me once" thing..

(Likewise, Democrats claim to be the anti-war party and the party of personal rights. Yet they go along with the wars and make no attempts to increase civil liberties.)

September 12th, 2012, 8:46 pm

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12488

Re: Coke V Pepsi

Thought this might fit in with this discussion:

Reason wrote:

What If November Changes Nothing? What if the principal parties' candidates for president really agree more than they disagree?Andrew Napolitano | September 13, 2012

What if the principal parties' candidates for president really agree more than they disagree?

What if they both support the authority of the federal government to spy on Americans without search warrants? What if they both support confining foreigners, uncharged and untried, in Guantanamo Bay? What if they both believe the president can arrest without charge and confine without trial any American he hates or fears?

What if they both believe in secret courts -- kept away from the public and the press -- that can take away the rights of Americans? What if they both think the president can disregard the Constitution when it comes to the rights of those the government has confined to speedy trials, to confront witnesses and evidence against them, and to counsel of their choosing? What if they both believe the government can use evidence obtained under torture at trials in American courts? What if they both think the president can incarcerate those he once prosecuted, even after acquittal?

What if both major presidential candidates believe they can fight any war, assassinate any foe or assault any country using the military or the CIA, and they need not ask Congress for a declaration of war as the Constitution requires, nor account to Congress or the public as the law requires? What if they both want American troops to remain in Afghanistan, even though no foreign country in history has successfully done so, and even though the culture in Afghanistan is as lawless, as vicious to women and children, and as harmless to America today as it was when President Bush invaded it in 2001?

What if they both think this costly and fruitless war -- the longest in American history -- is somehow good for American freedom and security, even though most Americans do not? What if they both refuse to understand that the longer we are killing people in foreign lands who can cause us no real harm the more likely will people from those lands come here and bring us real harm?

What if they both believe in adding to the government's $16 trillion debt and letting future generations deal with paying it back? What if they both want to have the feds spend more money next year than the feds are spending this year? What if they both accept FDR- and LBJ-style entitlements, even though they are nowhere authorized by the Constitution and there are not enough present-day workers to tax in order to pay for them?

What if President Obama wants to raise taxes by increasing some tax rates on the rich? What if Gov. Romney wants to raise taxes by eliminating some tax deductions available to the rich? What if raising taxes on anyone in a recession will cause higher unemployment?

What if they both believe in borrowing newly printed money from the Federal Reserve in order to fund the government? What if Obama is of the view that the federal government can tell you how to live and keep you from becoming too rich? What if Romney wants to make the same federal government more effective and efficient at what it does?

What if Obama is really a Marxist who rejects personal freedom, natural rights and private property? What if Romney is really an empty suit who doesn't know or won't say what he believes? What if Obama really wants all health care providers to work for the federal government? What if Romney spent the entire presidential primary season condemning Obamacare, only to say this past weekend that there are parts of it he really likes and will endeavor to retain?

What if Obama wants federal bureaucrats to ration health care and decide who lives and who dies? What if Romney spent the entire presidential primary season running against conservative and libertarian opponents and arguing that only the free market or the states should address health care, but earlier this week accepted a major federal role in its management?

What if Obama will have the feds tell you what doctor to see and tell the doctor what procedures to administer? What if Romney consistently blasted the concept that Congress can constitutionally force you to buy health care coverage you don't want to buy, but now accepts the concept that Congress can constitutionally force insurance companies to sell you health care coverage they don't want to sell?

there is no doubt the 2 candiates are different...what im having trouble seeing is the difference in the outcome between the 2.

One may be heads and the other may very well be tails...but they are the same coin and thats what i think most people fail to see.

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

September 13th, 2012, 11:12 am

wjb21ndtown

Re: Coke V Pepsi

Pablo wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

You have two familys, both make $40k per year, one family has a $120k per year medical emergency that lasts 2-3 years every 20 years, the other wants to spend $120k more than they take in EVERY YEAR and BORROW to make it happen (not meaning that the govt borrows money, both sides borrow money. What I mean is, the Dem. plan will get MORE expensive year after year). There is a HUGE difference in those numbers!

You are forgetting one thing, that family with the medical emergency - always has a medical emergency.

That's not true. There are huge times of peace between wars. Do we still occupy areas? Sure, does it cost one 10th of what it did when the war was going on, hell no.

Blueskies wrote:

Yeah, it's cute to say the spending stops when the wars stop because the wars never stop. This country has been in a continous state of war since 1941.

See above... WWI, 20 years later WWII, 10 years later Korean War, 20 years later Vietnam, 20 years later Dessert Storm, 10 years later Afghanistan.

Tax cuts aren't what kill this country, social entitlement programs are. You can't tax cut your way into a deficit, you spend your way into one.

That said, your entire premise isn't even true. Reps don't want zero taxes 9which would be the ultimate case for "never ending tax cuts." They fight the "fairness" in the tax code and look for ways to equal things out. People think that loopholes are these weird little flaws or quirks in the tax code, they're not. They're put in there ON PURPOSE to stimulate the economy and ALLOW wealthy people to shelter their money. They are literally put in there to even out the LACK of "fairness" in the tax code.

Poor people pay nothing, LITERALLY NOTHING, in tax. Some 25% of the population pays ZERO. Mitt Romney takes advantage of a portion of the tax code that HELPS the economy, a portion of the tax code that helps STABILIZE the economy and STILL pays $6.2 million dollars in income tax, and somehow it's not "fair." Somehow HE'S THE ONE not paying his fair share???

Then people talk about the "fair tax" as if it's going to HURT the rich people. They would LOVE it. It's ridiculous that somehow it's not "fair" to only charge people what the poorest of the nation are paying. It's ridiculous that "fair" has somehow been boiled down to you SHOULD pay more than me. How the hell is that "fair"? Winston Churchill said "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer," and he was right! We've hurt the upper class, but haven't helped the lower class. How is that good? What "good" have we done with all of this?

You want proof that the poor can't be helped and can't "help themselves?" Look no further than the housing crisis. The Federal Government literally FORCED the banks to write loans to non-creditworthy people, and they defaulted on those loans, period. THEY made poor decisions, didn't pay their bills and lost their houses. It wasn't a decline in equity, falling house prices, blah blah blah... THEY WERE THE CAUSE of the falling housing prices.

If you want to fix poverty you have to fix it through education and advancement. Giving them "more" of anything only holds them back because it takes away their incentive to learn and advance themselves, period.

September 13th, 2012, 4:04 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Coke V Pepsi

Blueskies wrote:

Quote:

Please stop using GWB as an example of a republican way of government.

Uh...what? The guy was president for eight years. He was the head of the Republican party. For most of his time in office he had both a Republican House and Senate.

Republicans like to peddle the myth that they're the party of small government. They're not. When in power, they expand government. This has been true since Eisenhower.

I generally like what Republicans say, but I won't vote for them because they never live up to it. The whole "fool me once" thing..

(Likewise, Democrats claim to be the anti-war party and the party of personal rights. Yet they go along with the wars and make no attempts to increase civil liberties.)

8 years out of the history of the party, and he's the end-all, be-all voice? When a whole sect of the party (economic conservatives) didn't even agree with him? Yea, that's genius, his voice IS bible... What a joke.

They expand government? How so? And how much of it was at the behest of a Republican Congress? You can point to the "no child left behind" act if you want, but that was a bi-partisan issue, and it was widely regarded that SOMETHING needed to be done to reform schools. Things are getting worse and worse in our education system, IMO caused by the degradation of the family institution, and laziness of teachers, and teacher unions supporting old, lazy teachers over young, enthusiastic teachers.

You list all of the expansions that have happened under a Republican controlled house and presidency and I can beat their expense with ONE BILL that the Dems forced on us - Obama Care.

September 13th, 2012, 4:08 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Coke V Pepsi

TheRealWags wrote:

Thought this might fit in with this discussion:

Reason wrote:

What If November Changes Nothing? What if the principal parties' candidates for president really agree more than they disagree?Andrew Napolitano | September 13, 2012

What if the principal parties' candidates for president really agree more than they disagree?

What if they both support the authority of the federal government to spy on Americans without search warrants? What if they both support confining foreigners, uncharged and untried, in Guantanamo Bay? What if they both believe the president can arrest without charge and confine without trial any American he hates or fears?

What if they both believe in secret courts -- kept away from the public and the press -- that can take away the rights of Americans? What if they both think the president can disregard the Constitution when it comes to the rights of those the government has confined to speedy trials, to confront witnesses and evidence against them, and to counsel of their choosing? What if they both believe the government can use evidence obtained under torture at trials in American courts? What if they both think the president can incarcerate those he once prosecuted, even after acquittal?

What if both major presidential candidates believe they can fight any war, assassinate any foe or assault any country using the military or the CIA, and they need not ask Congress for a declaration of war as the Constitution requires, nor account to Congress or the public as the law requires? What if they both want American troops to remain in Afghanistan, even though no foreign country in history has successfully done so, and even though the culture in Afghanistan is as lawless, as vicious to women and children, and as harmless to America today as it was when President Bush invaded it in 2001?

What if they both think this costly and fruitless war -- the longest in American history -- is somehow good for American freedom and security, even though most Americans do not? What if they both refuse to understand that the longer we are killing people in foreign lands who can cause us no real harm the more likely will people from those lands come here and bring us real harm?

What if they both believe in adding to the government's $16 trillion debt and letting future generations deal with paying it back? What if they both want to have the feds spend more money next year than the feds are spending this year? What if they both accept FDR- and LBJ-style entitlements, even though they are nowhere authorized by the Constitution and there are not enough present-day workers to tax in order to pay for them?

What if President Obama wants to raise taxes by increasing some tax rates on the rich? What if Gov. Romney wants to raise taxes by eliminating some tax deductions available to the rich? What if raising taxes on anyone in a recession will cause higher unemployment?

What if they both believe in borrowing newly printed money from the Federal Reserve in order to fund the government? What if Obama is of the view that the federal government can tell you how to live and keep you from becoming too rich? What if Romney wants to make the same federal government more effective and efficient at what it does?

What if Obama is really a Marxist who rejects personal freedom, natural rights and private property? What if Romney is really an empty suit who doesn't know or won't say what he believes? What if Obama really wants all health care providers to work for the federal government? What if Romney spent the entire presidential primary season condemning Obamacare, only to say this past weekend that there are parts of it he really likes and will endeavor to retain?

What if Obama wants federal bureaucrats to ration health care and decide who lives and who dies? What if Romney spent the entire presidential primary season running against conservative and libertarian opponents and arguing that only the free market or the states should address health care, but earlier this week accepted a major federal role in its management?

What if Obama will have the feds tell you what doctor to see and tell the doctor what procedures to administer? What if Romney consistently blasted the concept that Congress can constitutionally force you to buy health care coverage you don't want to buy, but now accepts the concept that Congress can constitutionally force insurance companies to sell you health care coverage they don't want to sell?

What if they both believe in adding to the government's $16 trillion debt and letting future generations deal with paying it back? What if they both want to have the feds spend more money next year than the feds are spending this year? What if they both accept FDR- and LBJ-style entitlements, even though they are nowhere authorized by the Constitution and there are not enough present-day workers to tax in order to pay for them?

What if President Obama wants to raise taxes by increasing some tax rates on the rich? What if Gov. Romney wants to raise taxes by eliminating some tax deductions available to the rich? What if raising taxes on anyone in a recession will cause higher unemployment?

Yea... "What if?", right?

I'll tell you what if... We KNOW that all of that is true of the Democrat Party, if it's true of the Republican Party too, we're phucked. We'll have a financial collapse within the next 10 years and we'll literally be starting over in this country. But the only way to tell "IF" that's true is to vote Obama out of office and give someone else a try. We know his way. We know he wants massive expansion of social entitlement programs. We know he rejects even small scale shifting of federal benefits to private funds of the SAME VALUE to allow US to decide what to do with that money in ways that THEY can cost control. You can argue that maybe it won't be enough, that maybe they won't give us enough to actually buy the same benefits on the private market, but the proposal is SO SMALL and VOLUNTARY, so why fight it so much? Why not try it? Why not see if the "what if" is DIFFERENT?

Romney is the only other REASONABLE alternative to Obama. He is the only one with a real chance to win, and he's the only one with a real chance to undo some of this massive spending and government expansion. Why not give him the chance? Why allow it to continue? Why not give him a shot at reforming Obama Care, which the majority of us do not want?

What is certain is that if Obama is left in office all of that crap will come true, period. Someone else should have a chance to really bring about a change to a smaller, better way.

September 13th, 2012, 4:14 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Coke V Pepsi

regularjoe12 wrote:

there is no doubt the 2 candiates are different...what im having trouble seeing is the difference in the outcome between the 2.

One may be heads and the other may very well be tails...but they are the same coin and thats what i think most people fail to see.

That may be true RJ, but you have to give Romney a shot to try to reduce the size and scope of government and actually undo Obama Care. If the outcome is the same and the Bill lives, we're screwed, but Obama doesn't even WANT it undone. Most of us do... If it stays while Romney is in office, it stays, but the only shot of it going away are to get rid of Obama.

September 13th, 2012, 4:16 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9898Location: Dallas

Re: Coke V Pepsi

wjb21ndtown wrote:

That's not true. There are huge times of peace between wars. Do we still occupy areas? Sure, does it cost one 10th of what it did when the war was going on, hell no.

wjb21ndtown wrote:

See above... WWI, 20 years later WWII, 10 years later Korean War, 20 years later Vietnam, 20 years later Dessert Storm, 10 years later Afghanistan.

Logical but not back up by facts, I grew up in the 80's, a time of peace between wars - might want to take a look at military spending under Regan (hint, it was a higher % of GDP back then than at any time since we started wars in Iraq/Afganistan and during this time of peace (80-88) our spending per capita nearly doubled from when he took office to when he left).

Even when we don't have wars - we still do. It might be called a War Against Terrorism, or the Bay of Pigs, or a Cold War, or Coke vs. Pepsi. There always seems to be an enemy, offical war or not!